Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.J.BABU, AGED 35 YEARS versus THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.J.BABU, AGED 35 YEARS v. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES - WP(C) No. 1611 of 2006(P) [2007] RD-KL 2805 (7 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1611 of 2006(P)

1. K.J.BABU, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

4. ANIL, DRIVER OF MANAGING DIRECTOR,

5. RENGITH, DRIVER OF CHAIRMAN, DAILY WAGES

6. JOY, DRIVER OF EX-CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE

7. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :07/02/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J

W.P.(C)NO. 1611 of 2006

Dated this the 7th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner, admittedly, was working as Driver on daily wages. Alleging that some others who were working as Drivers on daily wages have been given the benefit of regularisation of their services, the petitioner made a similar claim. It is contended that the Government had issued orders directing the subordinate authorities to regularise the services of Part-time Sweepers and that benefit can be extended to the petitioner also in the same manner. The case of respondents 4 to 7 is highlighted in support of the contention.

2. Counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that the benefit of the Government order is confined to Part-time Sweepers and the petitioner cannot make a claim as of right to get a similar order as he is not a Part-time Sweeper. Claim made on the basis of regularisation of the service of respondents 4 to 7 W.P.(C)No. 1611/2006 :2: cannot be a basis for getting orders of regularisation by Drivers or other categories. The benefit is confined to Part-time Sweepers only. Standing counsel for the first respondent submits that respondents 4 to 7 were doing the work of Part-time Sweepers as well as that of Drivers, and therefore, there is no similarity between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 7. That apart any order passed by the first respondent deviating from the principles formulated by the government in the matter of regularisation of Part-time employees cannot be the foundation for granting reliefs by this Court. It is well settled that equity cannot be claimed to perpetuate illegality. The petitioner is to stand on his own legs and establish that under the provisions of law or orders having the force of law, he is entitled to make a claim for the regularisation of his service. The petitioner having failed in that attempt, is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed.

K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE

W.P.(C)No. 1611/2006 :3: css / W.P.(C)No. 1611/2006 :4:


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.